"Will the Real Seventh-day Adventist Church Please Stand Up,"

Written by Ralph W. Martin

President, Potomac Conference

Unpublished Article, Dated 9/7/89

Prepared by:

Thomas Andrew Norris and Elizabeth Gurubatham Norris, Corporate Development Consultants

October 1989

Post Office Box 317

Ashton, Maryland 20861

Submitted to:

North American Division

The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

12501 Old Columbia Pike

Silver Spring, Maryland 20904

Today, the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination is facing a crisis of historic proportions. The Church has clearly entered into a period of theological drift that has not only obscured its apocalyptic mission, but has threatened the very existence of the Denomination. The most recent cause for this crisis can be directly linked to the righteousness by faith debates which challenged the Denomination during the 1970s. This unresolved conflict has managed to polarize the Adventist community to such an extent that the majority of the members have serious doubts about the Church's doctrinal beliefs. Unless this theological impasse is quickly resolved and a contemporary mission that is historically Adventist and Biblically defensible is developed, the Church will be unprepared to enter the twenty-first century.

In an effort to meaningfully address this crisis, Ralph Martin has written a timely, intriguing article that is long overdue. Although Martin offers several excellent suggestions, which will certainly contribute toward a resolution of the emergency, he fails to accurately diagnose the underlying problems. Moreover, because Martin believes that "there is no ideal, certain course of action,"1 the reader will hopefully pardon this reviewer's enthusiasm in proposing specific solutions that are intended for management's careful analysis and consideration.

Martin's attempt to resolve the growing crisis of polarization and cultural disintegration within Adventism is inadequate. His article exhibits a number of fundamental flaws that continue to plague the Church leadership as they attempt to cope with the growing malaise and theological confusion within the Church. The most serious problem is his failure to accurately analyze this complex situation. He incorrectly attributes the current problem to several erroneous factors and fails to accurately assess the Denomination's doctrinal struggle and pluralistic makeup.

Martin seems to think that the following four factors are the root cause for the current "increasing diversity of thought and life-style" that has become so prevalent within the Adventist church:2

1. rapid growth

2. cultural diversity

3. educational success

4. worldly interaction

The facts, however, do not support this assumption. Many denominations today have experienced these same challenges, but, unlike Seventh-day Adventism, most are not struggling internally for their very survival. The Mormon Church is a good example which illustrates this point.3 They have, and still are, experiencing rapid growth; they, too, are a world-wide movement and enjoy cultural diversity; they, too, have educational success; and they, too, interact in our world in a major way. Why are they, unlike Adventism, so well organized, united, and prosperous?

The Catholic Church is another example. They are certainly no stranger to rapid growth, culture diversity, educational success, or worldly interaction; and they, like the Mormon Church, are definitely not experiencing a life-threatening fight for survival.4 In fact, both the Catholics and the Mormons have experienced more historical problems, theological heresies, violence, and public disapproval than our Denomination can ever imagine. All denominations live and compete in the same world market and few, if any, are experiencing the severe polarization, theological confusion, and primary market share loss to the extent that we are.

While it would be comforting to those responsible for the management of our Denomination to blame the present difficulties on the four external, non-theological factors cited by Martin, these factors are clearly not responsible for the rapid deterioration during the past 20 years of the Adventist church in America. However, there are other contributing factors that have not yet been addressed. Unless these factors, which are the root cause of our problems, are correctly identified and honestly dealt with, there can be no real solution to the growing crisis.

Martin's doctrinal analysis of the present crisis is incorrect. His claim that there is "harmony on the basic doctrines" can only be considered wishful thinking. Although he correctly states that the Denomination is in a period of "transition," one of "increasing diversity of thought and lifestyle,"5 his assessment that the Church is not polarized over basic doctrine is woefully inadequate. One must wonder where Martin has been for the last two decades when he states that "our dominant divergences are not centered around our primary Adventist doctrines."6 Such a statement is incomprehensible as well as counterproductive. His claim that the Church agrees on "the saving grace of Jesus Christ and the law and the Sabbath" cannot be supported. In fact, this is the very area that tore the Church apart in the 1970s, and it is still the underlying cause of the problems within the Church today. The unsettled debate over righteousness by faith is without question the single greatest factor impacting the current crisis. And unless Church leaders face this fact honestly, there can be little hope of unity or peace.

Martin continues to miss the point when he refers to the current crisis as, "the latest debates that threaten our unity"7--as if today's conflict is unique or isolated from our Denomination's historical background. The fact of the matter is that in the 1880s, our Church entered into a doctrinal debate that has never been fully understood, much less resolved. As the theological debate continued into the twentieth century, the Denomination's best scholars attempted to resolve the issues but to no avail. In the 1970s, the unresolved debate over righteousness by faith escalated out of control as the Church attempted to settle this century-old conflict by removing the popular Dr. Desmond Ford from the Denomination. Regardless of whether Ford's positions were valid or not, it was this action--more than any other--that directly contributed to the present crisis of polarization and theological drift.

As Martin endeavors to address the current emergency, he makes the tragic mistake of isolating the present events at the expense of overlooking the historical context which lie at the root of the problem. By ignoring both the historical nineteenth-century theological debate as well as the recent conflict, he is unable to assess the issue accurately. Apparently he does not understand that the "latest debate" over (1) "the writings of our prophet, Ellen G. White;" (2) "the possibility of complete sanctification before Christ returns;" and (3) the areas concerning social behavior8 are, in fact, nothing more than the continuation of both the nineteenth-century debate as well as the unresolved battle of the 1970s.

The Denomination needs to understand that the present difficulties of the Church are not new or unique. The Advent movement has faced similar problems of survival in the past. For example, in the Spring of 1844 during the end of the First Angel's Message, the Church arrived at its first life-threatening crisis. This crisis was temporarily resolved--only to be =

repeated again on October 23, 1844. With the discovery of the Third Angel's Message, however, the Advent church miraculously survived from that second devastating crisis which, at the time, seemed so fatal.

During the 1888 era, the Church once again experienced a crisis of survival. However, because the Denomination's leadership failed to correctly handle that challenge, the Church's greatest institutions were destroyed and the leadership fled Battle Creek in humiliation. The consequences of failing to resolve the 1888 doctrinal debate led to the greatest apostasy that the Church has ever known: divine judgment and schism.

In order to successfully resolve the present crisis, the mistakes of the past--which have been many--must be better understood and applied to the current situation. Failure to learn the lessons of the past will force the Denomination into repeating the same mistakes of the last century. If this should happen, the Church will once again reap the same consequences of apostasy, judgment, and schism.

Martin's attempt to identify the various polarized groups within the Adventist Church is a necessary, useful analysis. However, before evaluating his four membership models, we must first look at the three major groups which more accurately comprise the Seventh-day Adventist market. These groups are as follows:

• Active: Members who attend church at least once a month;
• Inactive: Members whose names are still on church records, but rarely attend church; and
• Former: Members whose names have been removed from church records.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between these groups. This examination depicts the depth of the current crisis and highlights the necessity of developing a realistic, expeditious resolution before total collapse occurs=2E

[Figure 1]

As can be seen in the figure above, there are only 450,000 (20.77%) active church members remaining in the U.S.; 216,199 (9.98%) inactive members; and 1,500,000 (69.25%) former members.9 Such a large accession rate, combined with those who are already moving in that direction (approximately 80%), is an intolerable statistic that must be quickly addressed and resolved. Should this trend continue into the 1990s, the survival of the Denomination much beyond the year 2000 is doubtful. (With such bleak statistics, it is truly a miracle that the Church still survives today). There is little doubt that dramatic action must be implemented immediately in order to reverse these startling statistics. Denominational repositioning is no longer an option, it is a mandatory action that must be taken if the Church is to survive.

After reviewing the groups which more realistically comprise the Adventist market, we can now turn our attention to Martin's four models. These models, which are actually subcategories within the Adventist community, are:

• Regular Adventists
• Traditional Adventists
• Intellectual Adventists
• Cultural Adventists

Like Martin's earlier misdiagnosis of the causes for the Church's present dilemma, he again fails to accurately evaluate the situation as it relates to the polarization within the Advent body. Although he correctly recognizes that these "models" form the "basis for understanding what disagreement separate us,"10 Martin ignores one segment altogether, invents at least another, and fails to provide any statistical context for relational analysis. The following market segments more accurately reflect the pluralism which currently exists within the Adventist community:

• Silent Majority
• Traditionalists
• Reformationists

These are discussed in more detail below.

The group referred to by Martin as "Regular Adventists" is in reality better termed the "Silent Majority." This segment, which primarily contains individuals who are middle-age or older, comprise approximately 60% of the Church body. The Silent Majority represents those "Regular Adventists" who are too apathetic, busy, or hesitant to take a public position on the theological debate that is the root cause for the Church's present polarization. Many Denominational workers fall into this category. Although their input, especially those in leadership positions, may be quite helpful, they are fearful of the possible repercussions. Therefore, they deliberately avoid the issues at all cost.

Because of its size, it is this segment that is most at risk from the current crisis. They are caught in the middle of a protracted and seemingly unsolvable debate--a debate that they are fearful of participating in themselves. This situation serves only to increase the level of frustration and anger within the main core of the Denomination. As the Church's mismanagement--Davenport, Harris Pine Mills, Adventist Health System, Ellen White's alleged plagiarism, etc.--surfaces from time to time, this segment grows more confused as well as wary and suspicious of the leadership's ability and motives. This segment may hold the key to the Church's immediate future. Should the Denomination lose the support of the Silent Majority, the Church will probably fall.

The "Traditionalists" comprise about 20% of the Church body. Like the Silent Majority, this segment primarily consists of individuals who are middle-aged and older. Martin correctly identifies this segment as those who would like to recreate nineteenth-century Adventism, including the doctrine of perfectionism. The Traditionalists represent the conservative right wing of the church. They were supported by the Review and its editor, Kenneth Wood, during the Righteousness by Faith debates which took place in the 1970s.11 In addition, many independent institutions, such as Wildwood, Heartland, etc., also support this segment.

The Traditionalists believe that sanctification is a vital, necessary ingredient to achieve and retain personal salvation. Therefore, they insist that sanctification be included in the term righteousness by faith. Weiland and Short are the two most notable leaders of this market segment. Although the Traditionalists clearly teach a perfectionistic soteriology, their twentieth-century contribution has been an emphasis on preserving the Denomination's nineteenth-century doctrines including eschatology. As Martin notes, this segment is critically important to the Church.

The "Reformationists" are an important category that Martin completely overlooks. This progressive, more youthful segment emphasizes the doctrine of justification by faith and refuses to accept the Church's historical position that sanctification is a valid test for personal salvation. They comprise the remaining 20% of the Adventist community.

The Reformationists have rejected the Traditionalists' position relative to righteousness by faith in favor of the Protestant understanding as articulated by the exiled Dr. Desmond Ford. This segment believes that personal salvation is achieved exclusively by the substitutionary righteousness of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they reject sanctification as a means of salvation and refuse to include this doctrine within the parameters of righteousness by faith.

Although this segment has a far superior soteriolgy, their emphasis on "realized eschatology" has placed them at odds with the Church's historic apocalyptical mission, which is more closely associated with "consummated eschatology." Even though the Reformationists have failed to develop or articulate an eschatological viewpoint, many pastors as well as a large portion within the Silent Majority support their soteriological viewpoint=2E

As for Martin's third model, the "Intellectual Adventists," it does not appear that they are large enough to warrant a separate segment; rather, the Intellectual Adventists exist primarily within the Silent Majority segment in the hope of carving out a popular following. Intellectual Adventists are educated leaders, mainly from the academic or medical community and, as correctly indicated by Martin, they continually challenge the historic doctrines of the pioneers and see little value in many of the traditions of the Church.

The "Cultural Adventists," Martin's fourth model, is a category which simply does not exist. Perhaps Martin was using this term to refer to the "Worldly Adventists." In any event, "Worldly Adventists" don't stay in the Church long enough to form their own statistically relevant market segment. Lifestyle issues, such as the wedding ring, movies, jewelry, Sabbath observance, etc., are not confined to any one segment--it is a broad issue that is primarily generated by younger members who reside within the Silent Majority and Reformationist segments.

Figure 2 summarizes the polarized membership segments outlined above.

[Figure 2]

The Church leadership can no longer afford to ignore the Reformationist market segment. Their soteriological viewpoint has penetrated much more deeply into the Silent Majority than the perfectionistic position of the Traditionalists. However, unlike the Reformationists, the Traditionalists are currently planning to reach "every Adventist home in North America"12 with their perfectionistic viewpoints relative to the righteousness by faith conflict. In addition, they have produced numerous books, pamphlets, tapes, videos, etc. in a blatant effort to once again convert the Silent Majority to their aberrant soteriological viewpoint. Should the Reformationists, who currently lack a recognized spokesman within the Church, choose to become organized, the Church would be plunged once again into a public struggle over doctrine that will far exceed the conflict of the 1970s.

There is no doubt that the Denomination will be forced to face public doctrinal debate in the near future. The only unanswered questions are when it will happen and what the outcome will be. Because such a confrontation could further weaken and divide the Silent Majority, the Church leadership should devise a method to control the conflict and resolve this potentially volatile situation. Specific solutions will be addressed more fully in the following sections.

Although Martin failed to adequately assess the underlying causes for the current polarization and erroneously identified the market segments within the Adventist community, his four suggestions that "might provide more unity and keep us directed towards the mission of our church"13 are quite relevant and functional. These recommendations will be analyzed separately in the following sections.

Martin's four suggestions are as follows:

1. "We must emphasize our major doctrinal beliefs as the foundation of Church unity."

2. "Change is inevitable, so our Church should plan change as orderly as possible."

3. "God does not expect all Christians to think, look, and act alike."

4. "Church leaders must take a more aggressive role in creating harmony among Seventh-day Adventists."

Martin's first proposed step in resolving the crisis states that "We must emphasize our major doctrinal beliefs as the foundation of Church unity." Although he correctly declares that Adventist doctrines must become the primary consideration in any quest for a resolution of the current crisis, he fails to clearly articulate what those major doctrines are. In fact, Martin is guilty of ignoring the polarizing conflict over the gospel as well as incorrectly defining the Church's theological mission. His statement that connects "the exalted goals for God's remnant church" with the "challenge of preaching the gospel to all the world" is not the message our pioneers "so bravely began."14

Martin's suspiciously evangelical and ecumenical missiology inadequately portrays the Church's true apocalyptic mission. Adventism's nineteenth-century objective was narrowly focused upon the last-day events which were thought to be so near. The mandate of the pioneers was to present to the world the final warning message that would lead to the acceptance of the seventh-day Sabbath as well as the gospel. There is a vast difference between warning the world to prepare for the apocalypse and just proclaiming the gospel. In fact, it was not until after 1888 that evangelical positions such as the one Martin is espousing could even be advanced within Adventism. However, even if the Denomination were to adopt Martin's non-apocalyptical mission of promoting "the gospel commission,"15 the Church would still be deeply divided over the theological definition of the gospel. In this regard, it is unclear whether Martin supports the Traditionalists' or the Reformationists' viewpoint or whether he feels that the Church should even attempt to settle this sensitive issue, which is the focal point of the unresolved righteousness by faith debate.

In order to avoid the righteousness by faith conflict, many contemporary Adventists seem to have all but abandoned the eschatological mission of Adventism in an effort to promote a generic gospel that satisfies neither the Traditionalist nor the Reformationist market segment. Unless the Denomination is prepared to choose between the two versions of the gospel currently circulating within the Adventist community, the Silent Majority will remain apathetic and uninvolved; and, as a result, the Church will be unable to locate its true apocalyptical mission. It is increasingly evident that the Church cannot survive without a clear, concise definition of the gospel.

Although Martin correctly states that "we need to write, preach, teach and talk more on the great themes of the Bible,"16 he refuses to acknowledge the polarization over the gospel and fails to emphasize that Adventist doctrines must be delivered within an apocalyptical frame of reference. The challenge of the Church today is to first choose its gospel and then move on to develop a contemporary eschatology that is historically Adventist, Biblically defensible, and rationally plausible. Only in this way can the Church hope to resolve the present crisis and move forward to fulfill its divine, historic mission.

Martin's second proposal is that "Change is inevitable, so our Church should plan change as orderly as possible." Such a realistic assessment is most welcome and long overdue. Martin correctly concludes that "present truth" cannot be confined to any one generation, and his statement that "a changing church is the historical method that God uses to meet shifting world conditions"17 is perhaps his most profound and insightful observation. However, Martin does not indicate precisely how the Denomination should change, nor does he provide a historical context for that change. This is unfortunate because such a historical context is critical to any repositioning strategy in order to gain the much-needed support of the Silent Majority.

The Advent movement is certainly no stranger to change and by better understanding our history in this regard, the Denomination will be able to make the necessary adjustments to the next message in a positive, functional manner. The history of the Three Angels' Messages demonstrates that the Church advances within the Adventist apocalyptic by utilizing the method of "repositioning." Under the First Angel's Message, the Advent body was quite comfortable with its theological position. However, this message collapsed after the Spring of 1844 when the predicted eschaton failed to materialize. The Church then entered into the dangerous period in between the prophetic messages known as the "tarrying time." After much reflection and study, primarily by the laity, the Advent body "changed" and "repositioned" its message to what is now known as the Second Angel's Message. However, this short-lived message suddenly collapsed on October 23, 1844, and the Advent body once again entered into the "tarrying time." Again, the Church was faced with a crisis of survival and was forced to "change" and "reposition" itself. As a result, the Third Angel's Message was discovered and implemented.18

The 1888 era represented another historic period of advancement and change for the Advent cause--another opportunity to reposition the Church and move forward. This time, however, it would be to the last and final message known as the Fourth Angel's Message. Unfortunately, the leadership did not understand how to manage the famous theological conflict, and as a result, the Church experienced schism, judgment, and near collapse.19

History is repeating itself. The Church today is once again experiencing the near collapse of the Third Angel's Message. The "tarrying time" has arrived, and it is now time to quickly and carefully move forward in order to develop the fourth and last angel which facilitates the final work of the Advent church.20 The Denomination cannot turn back to the reassuring message of the late nineteenth century as the Traditionalists advocate, nor can it embrace the Reformationists' emphasis of realized eschatology to the exclusion of consummated eschatology. If the Church is to survive, it must choose the correct gospel and move forward to develop a contemporary eschatology that reflects the historic doctrines of the Adventist apocalyptic. If this is successfully accomplished, it will facilitate the development of a new prophetic message known as the Fourth Angel's Message, and the Church will experience its final repositioning.21

Martin's third suggestion states that "God does not expect all Christians to think, look, and act alike." Such a position is quite refreshing. No doubt having seen the tragic results of the rigid, hierarchical approach utilized in the 1970s (which is largely responsible for the present crisis), it appears that Martin now realizes that the leadership can no longer force its theological positions upon the Church body. Unlike a decade ago, Martin now claims that the "Church needs a vigorous, pluralistic approach to current questions and values...."22 Unfortunately, adopting such a position now may assist in preventing further collapse, but it certainly will not correct the past. In fact, such a new position raises even more doubt as to the prior attitude and actions of the Church's leadership. One cannot help but think that Martin's call for tolerance is a decade too late.

Although Martin has been careful not to reference Dr. Ford or his supporters who comprise a significant market segment as previously noted, questions must be raised at this point about the extent of Martin's pluralistic proposal. Does his call for tolerance within the Church extend to the Reformationist segment? Does Martin mean that Ford's position on righteousness by faith and his corollary sanctuary position can now be tolerated alongside Weiland's public position of perfection and his aberrant view on Christology? If Martin and other leaders consider the issue of tolerance a "vital" question that "the future of the Church rests,"23 then serious consideration of this issue is of the utmost importance.

Regardless of Martin's answers to these questions, it should be obvious to all concerned that there can be no hope of unity or peace until all sides of the debate are represented fairly. Measures such as this will go a long way in laying the foundation for the development of a contemporary Denominational mission that can be implemented with unity and purpose.

Martin's last proposal states that "Church leaders must take a more aggressive role in creating harmony among Seventh-day Adventists." Martin is correct in his assessment that Denominational leadership is a vital, necessary ingredient to the development of unity and purpose. At the present time, however, the members have very little confidence in the ability of the Denomination's management. They feel alienated and betrayed by the Church leaders. Public support for the Denomination is at an all-time low, and the scandals of the past and present are a haunting reminder of the leadership's inability to properly handle their responsibilities. Moreover, because many ministers and Church administrators refuse to accurately disclose information relating to the various problems confronting the Church today and choose instead to speak in unrealistic terms of glowing optimism, the credibility of the leadership has been severely damaged. Unless the leaders decide to be more open and honest in their public evaluation of Church-related matters--including the righteousness by faith debate--the members will continue to resent them.

Regarding the present state of the ministry, Martin seems genuinely perplexed as he laments the seriousness of this important and critical leadership group. Although he notes that the brightest and best talents "are turning away" from the ministry in pursuit of other, more challenging job opportunities,24 he fails to hazard a guess as to why so many potential theologians are refusing to serve the Adventist community. One of the major reasons can be directly traced to the righteousness by faith debates of the 1970s and the Denomination's heavy-handed, non-pluralist position which terminated the theological discussion in 1980. Unfortunately, as a result, many ministers left the Denomination and those who stayed have been too afraid to speak directly on the important issue of salvation. The action of the Denomination's leadership forced the ministry to sidestep these salvific issues rather than lead the people forward in continued study. Because of the Denomination's censorship, the quality of the sermons have deteriorated markedly and the mission of the Church, which was so closely tied to the righteousness by faith discussion, swiftly vanished. Open Bible discussions as well as frank inquiry about Church history are no longer meaningful or necessary. The pastors are crippled in their holy task and their lack of freedom, combined with the absence of a relevant Church mission, has made them ineffective. Unless this critical group is allowed to think and speak openly and honestly--without the threat of losing their positions--there can be no resolution of the present crisis.

Today, the world is awash with an unprecedented tide of freedom and democracy. The political events in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe are beamed on a daily basis into every Church member's home in North America. The members appreciate, as never before, the value of freedom and democratic participation. Church leaders must better understand current world events and repudiate the Denomination's previous attitudes which have largely been responsible for the present crisis. They must learn that they do not--and cannot--control the minds and conscience of Church workers or members. In addition, Church leaders must realize that unless the recent history surrounding the righteousness by faith conflict is honestly addressed and specific action is taken to include the Reformationist segment in the corporate body, there can be no hope for unity, no prospect for the development of a contemporary mission, and no hope of stabilizing the deteriorating market share that threatens the very future of the Denomination.

Today, the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination is seriously polarized. As discussed in the sections above, the Adventist market consists of three major groups: active, inactive, and former. The active group, which is defined as those members who attend church at least once a month, may be further categorized into three major segments. The largest segment, which is referred to as the Silent Majority (or, to use Martin's term, the "Regular Adventists"), is surrounded by two opposing forces--the Traditionalists, on the right, and the Reformationists, on the left--as depicted in the diagram below.

Reformationists --------- Silent Majority --------- Traditionalists

It is these two minority factions, i.e., the Reformationists and the Traditionalists, that are currently impeding the forward progress of the main body. In order for the majority to advance, it will be necessary to resolve the century-old debate over righteousness by faith and to formulate a contemporary, relevant apocalyptical mission that will meet the needs of the Advent body in the twenty-first century.

Although the Traditionalists appear to lack a realistic Protestant soteriolgy, their major concerns are eschatologically focused. Conversely, the Reformationists, who lack a contemporary eschatological focus altogether, emphasize the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. The historic, apocalyptic emphasis of the Traditionalists appeals to many of the members in the Silent Majority, while the soteriological doctrine of the Reformationists has been even more widely received within this major segment. It is apparent from this analysis that the logical solution would be to combine the strengths of each of these minority segments in an effort to create a new message. This new message, which will be known as the Fourth Angel's Message,25 would include a contemporary Adventist eschatology (which would satisfy the emphasis of the Traditionalists) as well as the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith (which would satisfy the Reformationists).

It is this synthesis of eschatology and soteriology that eluded the Denomination in the 1888 era, and it is still the solution for the parallel crisis that exists today. However, the creation of such an apocalyptical message must be historically linked to our Adventist past, yet at the same time, must withstand the rigors of modern Biblical scholarship. This message, which has yet to be formulated, must be rational and realistic and must also include the primary doctrines of the Three Angels' Messages. The degree of success in formulating this message will determine the success of the Church's repositioning effort.

In order to develop and implement the proposed message, which is intended to unite the Church and revive the historic mission of the Denomination, a number of steps must be taken. The following briefly outlines these steps, which are divided into four strategic levels.

It is imperative that a ten-year Master Plan be developed in order to give structure and purpose to the Denominational repositioning effort. Such a comprehensive plan, which will need to address all areas of the Church including doctrine, lifestyle, and Church management, must clearly outline a strategy to revitalize the Adventist culture as well as inaugurate the Loud Cry of the Fourth Angel's Message. Some of the items that must be included in this Master Plan are outlined below.

1. The Theological Message. One of the primary purposes of the Master Plan will be to reaffirm and preserve the history of the Advent movement as contained in the Three Angels' Messages. The second purpose would be to clearly articulate a new message known as the Fourth Angel's Message, which would consist of a contemporary twenty-first century eschatology as well as the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith.

2. The Health Message. The Master Plan must also contain a number of specific steps that would effectuate the revitalization of the Adventist Health Message (which, surprisingly, has not been the subject of debate or conflict between the polarized sectors). An example of the implementation of this strategy is found in a plan entitled, "Business Plan to Develop a Regional and National Public Health Magazine for the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination," which was submitted to the Review and Herald in February, 1989.26 In addition, strategic plans to develop a national health center, which will be modeled after the principles of the famous Battle Creek Sanitarium, as well as the development of regional health centers located in major cities are currently in the research and development stage. Initially, the Adventist Health Message should be used to lead the repositioning effort within the Denomination. Once the proposed health network is established, it can be effectively utilized as a tool to introduce the Fourth Angel's Message to the public at large.

3. Media and Communications. The Master Plan must also include the repositioning of the Denomination's media and communications network. All of the Church's periodicals are in drastic need of updating,27 especially The Adventist Review. This historic periodical will need to become an open forum for the Adventist community, and will need to accurately reflect the various doctrinal positions within Adventism. Freedom of the press is an essential ingredient to keep the Advent body in touch with the leaders and each other as well. Without true freedom of speech, it will be impossible to convince the members that the Denomination is serious about reforming its past attitudes, which, to a large degree, are responsible for the mass exodus from the Church. For the proposed repositioning to be effective, the Review must become committed to the emerging Master Plan and encourage the Adventist community to reach its goal of developing a unity of mission.

To be successful, the Master Plan must also detail additional steps to be taken by the leadership in order to rebuild the Adventist culture which is currently in danger of extinction. Therefore, the plan will include the following:

• local church model,
• welfare and social services system,
• strategic mission for third world countries,
• revitalization of the educational system,
• evangelistic strategies,
• organizational re-structuring, and
• detailed plans to survive the great time of trouble that Adventists have always believed imminent.

The development of such a far-reaching Master Plan is essential in clearly communicating the strategic mission of the Church to the Adventist community and preparing the Denomination for the twenty-first century.

While the Master Plan is being developed, the Church body should enter into a period of earnest study and prayer in an atmosphere of openness and tolerance for one another's views. The local church should be encouraged to methodically examine the scriptures in order to provide supporting evidence for the various doctrinal viewpoints within the Adventist community. The Spirit of Prophecy should also be carefully studied along with the history of the Advent movement so that the Church can rediscover its historic mission as well as better understand the Three Angels' Messages. The history of the Christian church should also be examined--especially the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century--as well as the rise and fall of the great nations of the world. Let all the Church members, pastors, workers, and scholars seek a unity of purpose in prayer and study so that the specific issues under debate can be resolved in a rational, democratic manner.

Such an undertaking, if properly managed, has the potential of energizing both the Sabbath School and Church service as well as the mid-week service, which is now almost extinct. Nothing could be more effective in resolving the present crisis than to lead the Church back into the study of the scripture and the history of our Denomination. The launching of such a massive, educational process, however, should be conducted in such a manner as to allow the Advent body freedom to think and question as the Church rediscovers its forgotten destiny.

While the Church body is busy in study and discussion of relevant history and theology, the Church leaders must engage in a similar pursuit with representative leaders of the Denomination's various market segments. All three market segments must be fully represented--the Silent Majority, the Traditionalists, and the Reformationists. Other variant groups, ranging from offshoots to critics, should also be invited to meaningfully participate. If these discussions are to achieve their purpose of uniting the Advent body in the common pursuit of its historic destiny, all relevant points of view must be considered, for truth can afford to be fair and open. The commencement of such an inquiry will be a welcome signal to the polarized Church that the leadership is taking meaningful action to resolve the crisis and move the Advent body forward.

Although these discussions can be conducted in a private atmosphere, the entire Church body must be informed of the full substance and progress of the various issues under consideration. Background materials and position papers can be made available to the public in order to allow the Church body to participate in the ongoing discussions. Everyone within the Adventist community should have an opportunity to wrestle with the challenging issues and to voice their opinion on various positions through a democratic method of voting. By promoting open, honest discussion, the Denomination can gain the attention and participation of the polarized members (as well as many former members), which will allow the Church the unprecedented opportunity to become united in order to reach a consensus of both mission and message.

We have undeniably reached a period in world history where the power of the people is truly supreme. No longer can the State, or the church, dema=

nd obedience of thought or action. The recent events in East Germany highlight the futile results of such a dictatorial policy as thousands of the country's best and brightest citizens fled to the West in search of freedom. Adventism has also paid the price for failing to allow their members true freedom to elect their own leaders and implement their own programs. There would be little point of encouraging the polarized corporate body to engage in the study and evaluation of the Advent movement if their conclusions and choices could not be meaningfully acted upon by the body=2E Therefore, following the development of the Master Plan in Level 1 and the study and discussion periods of Levels 2 and 3, the Church must become reorganized to become fully democratic.

All members must be represented by duly-elected leaders who meet regularly in an official "congress" to govern the Denomination. A Denominational free press must be established to ensure that the leader's actions will be accurately reported to the members. Leadership accountability to the Advent body will make certain that those in management will be responsive as well as functional to the desires and needs of the body. In fact, a separation of power, to be modeled after the U.S. Government's Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, should take place. Moreover, an Adventist constitution should be drafted and approved by a two-thirds vote as well as a Bill of Rights to protect the individual's freedom of conscience.

The stated intention of implementing such a far-reaching reorganization proposal will ensure that Levels 1, 2, and 3 are taken seriously by the majority of the Adventist community. Participation and interest in the restructuring of Adventism will become lively and genuine. Competent leaders will arise, and the Church will quickly and miraculously move forward in unity of purpose in order to complete their unique, sacred destiny.

It must be obvious to all concerned that the current crisis within Adventism can only be resolved within an atmosphere of freedom and true democracy. If the Denomination continues to deny the members the democratic structure that will enable the Advent community to govern and police itself, the "platform" of the former Adventists will continue to be heard through their votes of formal separation. And the "platform" of inactive Adventists will also continue to be heard through their votes of ambivalence and their lack of participation. Should more of the polarized Advent body choose to join with the "former" or the "inactive" group, the governing body of the Denomination will fall for lack of support. If this happens, the glorious cause of Adventism will suffer unnecessary defeat and embarrassment.

The risk of implementing the four-level strategic plan discussed in the sections above can be assessed against the proposed benefits. There is, of course, the real risk of failure to reach a consensus regarding doctrine and mission. Such a failure could lead to the independent development of two or three conflicting master plans. Because the local churches would now be able to vote for any plan, or parts of the plan, more polarization could occur. Specific churches or even whole conferences, for example, could secede from the Denomination in an effort to follow their own path. However, it should be noted that these negative reactions have already occurred within Adventism to quite a large degree (see Figure 1, "former" and "inactive" statistics). Therefore, it is realistic to assume that the worst case scenario would be the continuation of the present ineffective policies or the continued attempt to introduce half measures that could further escalate the present highly unstable situation.

On the other hand, the possible benefits of implementing the proposed strategy seems to far outweigh the risks. The following list indicates some of the positive benefits of implementing the four-level strategic plan:

• Development of an organized strategic plan ;
• Unified promotion of the Adventist Health Message;
• Denominational unity of purpose, focused to resolve crisis;
• Adventist community becomes more open, tolerant, and pluralistic;
• Membership participation greatly increased;
• Study of the Bible as well as an examination of Adventist history;
• Strengthened ministry;
• Increased involvement of Sabbath School, Church Services, etc.;
• Re-education of the membership;
• Polarized factions united with regard to theology;
• Development of a contemporary eschatological mission (i.e., the Loud Cry of the Fourth Angel);
• Revitalization of the Adventist culture;
• Implementation of superior church government;
• Democratic participation by all members;
• Increased Denominational market share;
• Fulfillment of divine apocalyptical Mission;
• Advent Church prepared for the time of trouble;
• Advent Church ready for eschaton.

The Church today is undeniably in the midst of a historic crisis. The active members, who comprise approximately 20% of the primary internal market, are growing increasingly frustrated with the situation of the Church. They are cynical of the Denomination's leadership and confused about the Church's mission. Clearly, the time has come to honestly face the emergency and take the necessary steps that will move the Advent body forward=2E

Clear and "certain" courses of action do exist, and they must be correctly implemented without delay. The members need (1) the assurance of Justification by Faith; (2) a contemporary apocalyptical mission that will arouse them to action and prove their faith valid; and (3) a democratic structure which will allow meaningful participation in the management of their Denomination.

May God give us the wisdom, strength, and courage to proceed.

APPENDIX

1 Ralph W. Martin, "Will the Real Seventh-day Adventist Church Please Stand Up," Unpublished manuscript, p. 5, paragraph 5.

2 Ibid., p. 1, paragraph 3.

3 John Heinerman and Anson Shupe, The Mormon Corporate Empire (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985).

4 This is not say that the Catholic Church in America is not experiencing serious difficulties. In fact, John Paul II has abandoned many of the progressive reforms of Vatican II. Therefore, tensions are mounting over lay participation, women's rights, sexual ethics, theological tolerance, etc. For further study, consult the following: (1) Andrew M. Greeley and Mary Greeley Durkin, How to Save the Catholic Church (New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1984). (2) Richard John Neuhaus, The Catholic Moment: The Paradox of the Church in the Postmodern World (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987). (3) Avery Dulles, S. J., The Reshaping of Catholicism: Current Challenges in the Theology of Church (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988). (4) Leonard Swidler and Herbert O'Brien, A Catholic Bill of Rights (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1988).

5 Martin, "Will the Real SDA Church Please Stand Up," p. 1, paragraph 3.

6 Ibid., p. 2, paragraph 2.

7 Ibid., p. 2, paragraph 3.

8 Ibid., p. 2, paragraph 3.

9 Monte Sahlin, "The Dropout Problem in the Adventist Church in North America," NAD Church Ministries Reports.

10 Martin, "Will the Real SDA Church Please Stand Up," p. 3, paragraph 1.=

11 Gary Land, Ed., Adventism in America: A History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), pp. 215-228.

12 1888 Message Study Committee, The 1888 Message Newsletter (May/June, 1989), p. 3. See also 1888 Message Literature Price List (April-June, 1989), pp. 1-4.

13 Martin, "Will the Real SDA Church Please Stand Up, p. 5, paragraph 5.

14 Ibid., p. 5, paragraph 3.

15 Ibid., p.12, paragraph 1.

16 Ibid., p. 7, paragraph 1.

17 Ibid., p. 7, paragraph 3.

18 Thomas A. Norris, 1888: The Untold Story, Unpublished Manuscript.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Martin, "Will the Real SDA Church Please Stand Up," p. 9, paragraph 1.

23 p. 2, paragraph 4.

24 Ibid., p. 11, paragraph 2.

25 According to Ellen White, "The work of this [fourth] angel comes in at the right time, and joins the last great work of the third angel's message, as it swells into a loud cry.... This message seemed to be an addition to the third message, and joined it, as the midnight cry joined the second angel's message in 1844." Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1, pp. 194, 195.

26 Thomas A. Norris and Elizabeth Gurubatham Norris, "Business Plan to Develop a Regional and National Public Health Magazine for the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination." February 1989, 140 pp.

27 Vibrant Life , for example, currently has only 1/16th of 1% of the primary market share. The "Business Plan to Develop a Regional and Public Health Magazine for the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination" is, in effect, a repositioning strategy for this periodical.

ADVENTISM IN CRISIS

PREFACE

Throughout its 167-year history, the Advent movement has been punctuated with recurring crisis. However, research has discovered that these major periods of crisis follow a discernable pattern that has led to theological re-evaluation, forward growth, and progress. Although "crisis" is typically viewed in the negative sense, the study of Adventist history reveals that, for the most part, these crisis periods have been beneficial to the Denomination and actually result in advancing the Church's mission.

This was certainly true during the Millerite period when the young movement almost came to an end twice during 1844. During these formative years, Adventism--on two major occasions--was faced with an outdated message that quickly resulted in a major loss of credibility. In order to survive, the movement had to squarely face its problems. This resulted in the emergence of the following pattern:

=A5 acknowledging the crisis,

=A5 resolving the crisis, and

=A5 moving forward.

In fact, the birth of the Third Angel's Message was the direct result of this historic pattern of crisis and resolution. Without real crisis and genuine resolution, the Advent movement would not have advanced through history.

As the post-Millerite history of Adventism continued during the Nineteenth Century, so, too, did the challenge of theological crisis. Although many problems plagued the growth and progress of the Third Angel's Message, none equaled the threat that the 1888 debates imposed on the young developing Church. These debates, led by Elliott Waggoner and Alonzo Jones, focused on the definition of the Gospel, which in turn forced the Church to re-examine its current understanding of both soteriology and eschatology. Although the 1888 debates resulted in an improved and welcome understanding of the Gospel for many within the Adventist community, it also resulted in an unintentional and embarrassing challenge by Waggoner and Jones to the Denomination's heavily promoted Sabbaterian eschatology.

The leadership responded to the 1888 crisis swiftly. At first, they reacted defensively in an authoritative and confrontational manner. However, thanks largely to Ellen White's influence, this heavy-handed policy was replaced by a more Gospel-friendly approach that seemed to accept the new emphasis on Justification by Faith. This new, kinder, gentler strategy appeared to work. The Gospel debate subsided and the Church's traditional beliefs remained protected and unchanged.

Although Waggoner's and Jones' emphasis of the Gospel was supported by Ellen White, the denominational leaders refused to consider the possibility of changing the then current theological model. Their failure to meaningfully incorporate the new Gospel emphasis into the Nineteenth Century eschatological model nearly destroyed the Advent movement. While this refusal to adjust the traditional Adventist paradigm no doubt made sense to the Battle Creek leadership at the time, the Denomination ultimately paid a heavy price for this strategic error. However, it was not an error that was readily manifest.

Following the unresolved 1888 debates, the Church actually grew and prospered as never before. In fact, by the end of the Nineteenth Century, the Advent movement had grown from a handful of believers into a large, global corporate institution. This success could also be seen in the Church's unique health system, which became powerful and famous during this period. Ironically, however, this prosperity was only temporary.

Unfortunately, the new Gospel emphasis and historical Adventism could not be readily harmonized or so easily ignored. While the traditionalists took comfort in the fact that the Third Angel's Message had survived a serious threat, many Gospel supporters who followed Waggoner gradually moved away from the literal view of Adventist eschatology. As a result, within twelve years or so after the 1888 debates, the Denomination experienced conflict, polarization, major schism, and near collapse.

The official strategy of not permitting the Gospel debate to influence the Church's traditional belief system created a serious credibility problem. Some of the elements of the Third Angel's Message no longer made sense. As a result, theological confusion, cynicism, and schism became rampant. In fact, soon after the turn of the century, the Church experienced a mass exodus of church members (including Waggoner and Jones) along with the loss of its flagship health facility, the Battle Creek Sanitarium. In humiliation and bitter acrimony, the Church leaders--those who were left--were forced to evacuate their once proud headquarters in Battle Creek and re-group in poverty in the suburbs of the Nation's Capitol, where the world headquarters for the Seventh-day Adventist Church still stands.

After the turn of the century, the humbled church, now located in Takoma Park, MD, began to slowly recover from their embarrassing and debilitating experience in Battle Creek. Thanks largely to Ellen White, A.G. Daniels, and others, some of the Gospel message from the 1888 debates was integrated into the Twentieth Century version of the Third Angel's Message. For example, the 1888 term "Righteousness by Faith" would now become a part of the history and legend of the Advent movement. But notwithstanding this theological adjustment, the Denomination would still have to face the same stubborn crisis in the future. It was only a matter of time.

By the 1960's, the Church had once again grown into a global corporate empire, but some openly questioned the official version of the 1888 history-- In order to silence these critics, in 1971, the Denomination released a massive 700-page book, entitled Movement of Destiny, by Leroy E. Froom. Ironically, rather than resolve the historic debate, the work actually fueled the long-simmering conflict into a firestorm. Within a few years after the release of Froom's massive 1888 tome, the debate over the Gospel once again plunged the Denomination into confusion and crisis.

Predictably, the same basic issues were raised with similar results. This time, instead of Dr. Elliott Waggoner championing justification by faith, it was Dr. Desmond Ford who so eloquently promoted the Protestant Gospel. Like their Battle Creek counterparts of the Nineteenth Century, the Takoma Park leaders also failed to resolve the confusing theological issues. As a result, in 1980, the leaders abruptly dismissed Ford and a number of his supporters, which in turn led to a large number of defections. The Church subsequently entered into a dangerous decade of malaise and theological drift that continues to this day.

By the end of the 1980's, the Denominational leaders found themselves struggling to keep the Adventist community theologically united and focused on its mission. The unsuccessful Twentieth Century debate over Righteousness by Faith left the Church weak and confused. Many Adventists were unhappy about any number of issues that ranged from the unresolved Gospel debates to lifestyle issues to church mismanagement. In fact, the decade of the 1980's witnessed the largest exodus of loyal members from Adventism since the Battle Creek fiasco at the turn of the century. Once again, Adventism was in crisis.

Today, the Church is repeating the same mistakes of the 1888 era. Not only has the Denomination lost sight of its history in Battle Creek, unfortunately, it has also forgotten its recent history of the 1970's and 1980's. After all, it should be apparent by now that Dr. Desmond Ford was the Twentieth Century equivalent of the infamous Dr. Elliott Waggoner. Ford, more than any other, was the one who in our time delivered the Gospel to the Adventist community with a clarity and force that is unparalleled in the Twentieth Century. He inadvertently became the "paradigm shifter" who in effect rendered the traditional Adventist model of the Third Angel's Message anachronistic and non-functional.

Whatever one's theological position concerning the Nineteenth- or Twentieth-Century Righteousness by Faith debates, this unresolved Gospel issue still haunts the Advent movement today. The present Church leaders still refuse to publicly admit that the Denomination's soteriological and eschatological models are flawed, much less broken. As a result of their rigid position, the leaders have failed to meaningfully address and resolve the fundamental problems that must be dealt with if the Church is to survive and move forward. Perhaps they, too, like their Battle Creek counterparts, feel secure in the illusion of the corporate prosperity surrounding them.

Fearing that the Church was still vulnerable to crisis, in 1989, the leaders decided to take action. Robert Dale, Vice President of the North American Division of the General Conference (now retired), began developing a strategic plan to reposition the North American Division (NAD). This would be done without having to address or resolve the growing dichotomy between the Gospel and historic Adventism. The NAD Plan would hopefully allow the Church more time to recover from the controversial Righteousness by Faith debates as well as provide a more tolerant atmosphere of openness and pluralism. But, more importantly, the Plan was designed to stop the high attrition rate, which was devastating the movement. The Church would now by policy become less dogmatic and more theologically tolerant of the competing Gospel views. Such a temporary strategy, however, would only postpone the negative effects of the unresolved crisis.

In the early 1990's, Ralph Martin, then President of the Potomac Conference, presented Dale's new passive strategy to the Church in the form of an article entitled, "Will the Real Seventh-day Adventist Church Please Stand Up," which was published in the Adventist Review in the winter of 1990. In this article, Martin addressed the Church's various problems in a comprehensive and logical manner, setting out the problems followed by the proposed solutions.

Before the article was published, however, Dale forwarded a copy of Martin's original draft to this author for his analysis and response. Dale knew that this author, a local Adventist businessman who had studied theology at Columbia Union College in Takoma Park, Maryland, in the 1970's, had been researching Adventism in the General Conference Archives, White Estate, and Andrews University for a number of years. Dale wanted the benefit of this historical perspective.

In October, 1989, this author responded to Dale's request by writing a 30-page report entitled "A Review and Further Analysis of Ralph Martin's Article, 'Will the Real Seventh-day Adventist Church Please Stand Up.'" (In 1992, the Report was re-titled, "Adventism in Crisis-A Discussion on the State of the Seventh-day Adventist Church"). This Report was officially submitted to the North American Division as well as to Ralph Martin (then President of the Columbia Union), the Biblical Research Department of the General Conference, President Neil Wilson, and eventually President-elect Robert Folkenberg, and other Church leaders. The paper was not intended for publication but rather for the leadership's internal use. Martin declined to make a rebuttal.

Although this Report was written almost a decade ago, the same fundamental problems still exist today. As the new millennium rapidly approaches, there has been no resolution of the crisis and the Church has not advanced. Moreover, some would argue that the Denomination is actually closer to the brink of collapse than ever before. This is evidenced by, among other things, the recent defections of a number of large, gospel-focused Adventist congregations. These defecting congregations, like the Damascus Road Community Church (DRRC), enjoy a broad support base within the frustrated Adventist community even though they are located within the proverbial shadows of the Church's world headquarters. Some think it is only a matter of time before additional churches defect and further weaken the North American Church beyond recognition.

It is the author's firm belief that the Church leadership must finally resolve this stubborn crisis by supporting the Protestant Gospel without trepidation or equivocation. Unfortunately, such a Gospel position is incompatible with the historic Third Angel's Message. This explains why the Nineteenth- and Twentieth Century leaders have refused to whole-heartedly embrace the Gospel emphasis. Such a conundrum can only be resolved by admitting that the Third Angel's Message has served its purpose and lived out its usefulness. After all, both the First and Second Angel's Messages were retired in order to make way for the new upgraded Third Angel's Message. Moreover, historic Adventism has taught that the Second Coming would not take place during the Third Angel's Message but rather during another, more advanced, message known as the Fourth Angel's Message. At this point in history it is important to remember that the Advent movement is more than just the Third Angel's Message. It started with the First Angel's Message and ends with the Fourth Angel's Message.

If the Denomination is to survive, much less prosper, in the Twenty-First Century, the Church must advance to the next level. This is the only solution left for the struggling Advent community. The Church must move forward from the crumbling Third Angel's Message to the next and final message that would be identified as the long awaited, yet little understood, Loud Cry of the Fourth Angel. This final paradigm change will complete the historic pattern of Adventist progression and energize the virtually dormant apocalyptic movement.

It is now time to resolve the crisis and develop harmony between the genuine Gospel, historic Adventist eschatology, and Denominational control. Such a new and improved version of Adventism will represent the final apocalyptic model known as the Fourth Angel's Message. This unique theological model, if properly developed and marketed, has the potential to resolve the present crisis by reforming, uniting, and revitalizing the beleaguered Advent movement.

Tom Norris

P. O. Box 317

Ashton, Maryland 20861

E-mail: tlgroup@erols.com

May, 1998